Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 04, New Delhi
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 3109/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, 32/7, Samalka, Nh 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaci9385B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Dated 13.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Disallowance Of ‘Project Pending Capitalization Written Off’ Expenses, Amounting To Rs.7,71,40,000/- & Treating These Expenses To Be Of Capital Nature. 2. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.5,40,62,940/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Revised Ground). 3. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.9,61,305/- On Account Of Claim Of Roc Fee Under Section 35D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .”
For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)
…nses written off should be allowed as business expenditure. 4.1 The AO observed that the issue of capital vs. revenue expenditure has been examined and discussed in the decision by Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT 232 ITR 639 (Del). The AO further held that the facts of the present case are different than the case law relied upon by the assessee that is M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 333 ITR 18. In that case, the project could not see the light of the day since the assessee company could not procure the allotment of the requisite land from the government.…
